Term limits were a well-intentioned experiment, but they have fallen short of the hopes of their sponsors.

Passed into law with the hope of limiting the amount of time lawmakers could spend in Augusta and of returning the Legislature to its citizen-politician roots, term limits have instead transferred power from the elected representatives of the people to the lobbyists, special interests and professional staff who have longer tenures and more expertise than the men and women they are trying to influence.

And even on the primary goal of limiting the amount of time a politician can serve, term limits have failed.

Instead of invigorating the Legislature with fresh faces and new perspectives, the restrictions have instead prompted a legislative square dance where popular members swing between the state’s House and Senate. Poland’s Lois Snowe-Mello is a prime example. Termed out in the House, Snowe-Mello successfully two-stepped into the Senate. Sen. John Martin, who may have been one of the principal targets of the original term limits law passed in 1993, has spent more than 30 years as a legislator and is now serving his third term in the Senate, where he maintains both his considerable influence and popularity in his home district.

The referendum that successfully introduced term limits into Maine rode a wave of national interest in the issue and capitalized on the state’s independent political tradition. The pursuit was noble. The goal was to return power to the people and disrupt the entrenched interests that had been portrayed as stalemating progress on important issues of the day.

Current law restricts lawmakers to eight consecutive years in office. Under the proposed changes, constitutional officers would still be restricted to four, two-year terms. Legislators elected after 2006 would not face term limits.

The limitations, however, prevent lawmakers from gaining the expertise and experience necessary to preside over the complicated functions of state government. Term limits depend on the myth that the Legislature requires no particular skill set – except those required to be elected – and can be performed with equal doses of common sense, integrity and education. The truth is it takes years to become proficient in the intricacies of the areas on which lawmakers are expected to make informed decisions.

Committee chairmen rise to power quickly, but are not always equipped to handle their assignments. They find themselves dependent on party leadership and the paid experts who turn information into influence and power.

In the end, lawmakers have always faced term limits. They must stand for re-election and defend their actions, or inactions, against all comers. Dissatisfied voters always have the option of turning them out. Of course, incumbents maintain an advantage, but Maine’s clean election laws and public financing for elections have leveled the playing field, and upsets are always possible.

Both the House and Senate have backed a measure that would send term limits back to voters for reconsideration in November 2006. Opponents of the bipartisan legislation say that the voters have already spoken. And they have. As in most things, however, there should be an opportunity to reconsider a decision when it hasn’t worked out as anticipated. The allure of settling a political issue once and for all is attractive – and impossible.

There’s nothing out of line in asking voters to take a new look at the state’s term limits law. They can reject it as a failed experiment or leave it in place. And no matter how they decide, the losing side is free to bring the issue back up again and try to persuade a change of heart. Ain’t democracy great?